Former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery and Australia’s foremost climate scientist addressed councillors on Cr Daley’s notice of motion on nuclear energy:

“Nuclear power is inappropriate for Australia and is also in decline globally,” he said.

“Forty years ago nuclear power provided about 17 per cent of global electricity generated. “Today that figure is about 10 per cent and … over the next six years around a quarter of all nuclear capacity in advanced economies will be shut down.”

He said nuclear and coal were not able to meet the changing demands of today’s energy market.

“What we need is a market fit for purpose where we can generate electricity to demand and that’s with clean energy with back up battery storage. That is the main source of new power plants globally, clean wind and solar and I recommend that council focus on that.”’

Nuclear for Ipswich to combat growing carbon emissions, Navarone Farrell, Queensland Times, August 21, 2019 SWANBANK is one of 10 sites in Queensland touted for a nuclear power station after talks at a lobby group summit.

The Australian Nuclear Association identified the potential sites back in 2016, but with carbon reductions high on politicians’ to-do list, the discussion has been re-opened, according to the lobby group’s vice-president, Robert Parker…….

Ipswich Residents Against Toxic Environments president Jim Dodrill said moving towards nuclear energy based on the premise of carbon footprint reduction “was nonsense”.

“We’re absolutely opposed to (nuclear). It doesn’t make any sense economically, it doesn’t make any sense environmentally and it certainly doesn’t make any sense in the long term in regards to the waste from that form of power generation,” he said.

“People do try to confuse the issue in relation to (nuclear’s) carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of nuclear is very, very high – not in the direct generation of power, but in the indirect.

“You’re talking about moving the fuel over great distances, you’re talking about a lot of storage and the logistics of the fuel and the waste and the set up of that kind of generator.

“It would be, in the long-term, no better than burning coal.”

Mr Dodrill said moving towards another form of non-renewable energy would be a step backwards and that the rest of the world has moved on from nuclear.

“It would make no sense for somewhere like Ipswich – or any city anywhere in Australia – to move into a type of power generation that’s (becoming defunct),” he said.

“It’s nonsense altogether… (this agenda) is obviously being pushed by a particular sector of the far right in Australian politics.”

Bundamba Labor MP Jo-Ann Miller, a fierce opponent of any more “stinks and smells” energy in Ipswich, ridiculed the idea.

“Australia cannot even work out what it needs to do in relation to the nuclear plant in Sydney,” she said.

“It’s certainly is at no stage of looking at nuclear-based power. Our city for many, many years has been a nuclear-free zone and that’s the way it should stay.

Nuclear reactor and steelworks plan once considered for pristine beaches of Jervis Bay

ABC IllawarraBy Nick McLaren 12 Aug 19, In the late 1960s, a plan was launched to transform an idyllic section of the New South Wales coast into a major industrial hub, complete with the country’s first nuclear power plant.

Key points:

Former PM John Gorton wanted a nuclear reactor built at Jervis Bay in the late 1960s

The project was delayed when William McMahon became prime minister in 1971

Then when Gough Whitlam became prime minister, he signed a treaty that ended any plans to make atomic weapons

A steelworks, petrochemical plant and an oil refinery were also slated for the site at Jervis Bay, but what was not announced was a plan to generate weapons-grade plutonium that could have seen Australia become a nuclear power.

Fifty years later, Australia is again mulling over the question of nuclear energy with two separate inquiries underway.

A federal parliamentary committee is investigating the economic, environmental and safety implications of nuclear power in Australia.

In NSW, meanwhile, a committee is looking into overturning a ban on uranium mining and nuclear facilities.

While neither is talking specifics in terms of where nuclear enrichment technology or modern-day facilities like small modular reactors (SMRs) could be located, it has brought to the forefront questions of geography.

Potential reactor sites

In 2007, in the wake of the Switkowski nuclear energy review under the Howard government, the Australia Institute published a research paper identifying 19 of the most likely reactor sites.

The sites were located across Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, NSW, and the ACT.

It found the most suitable sites were close to major centres of demand and preferably in coastal areas to ensure easy access to water.

Jervis Bay inevitably comes up as a potential reactor location due to its history as the only nuclear power plant to have received serious consideration in Australia.

At the time it was promoted as the first of many.

In February 1970, the Illawarra Mercury proclaimed:

“The power station will be the first of 20 atomic plants costing more than $2,000 million to be built in Australia by 1990.

“The reactor will use 500,000 gallons of sea water a day for cooling purposes.”

That was the blueprint that nearly became a reality.

Shrouded in secrecy

There was a darker side to the Jervis Bay reactor too, with evidence revealed in a 2002 ABC documentary, Fortress Australia, that the 500-megawatt fast breeder reactor was chosen due to its ability to generate weapons-grade plutonium for use in an Australian nuclear weapon

Fortress Australia uncovered secret documents showing how the chairman of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC), Phillip Baxter, influenced three Liberal prime ministers (Menzies, Holt and Gorton) to support the project. …..

Associate Professor Wayne Reynolds from the University of Newcastle told ABC podcast The Signal how Gorton pushed for the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay…….”They did the study, they worked out the capability, they had to go negotiate with the British about the technology, then they actually started to build this reactor at Jervis Bay.”

The project was first delayed after William McMahon became prime minister in 1971 and was later put on hold indefinitely, despite efforts to keep the project alive.

As late as March 1975, the Illawarra Mercury was reporting:

“Jervis Bay may still be the site for a nuclear power plant and a possible site for a nuclear-powered submarine base.”

But the horse had bolted.

Any hopes of a nuclear power industry in Australia effectively ended when McMahon lost government to Gough Whitlam’s Labor in December 1972.

Whitlam’s signing of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty in 1973 also ended any plans by the AAEC to provide Australia with the capacity to manufacture atomic weapons…….

Leave it in the ground: stopping the Jabiluka mine, Red Flag Fleur Taylor, 15 July 2019 “…… The election of John Howard in March 1996 marked the end of 13 years of ALP government…..

Australia’s giant mining companies – major backers of the Coalition – got their wish list. Howard immediately abolished Labor’s three mines policy, and the business pages crowed that “25 new uranium mines” were likely and possible. And in October 1997, then environment minister Robert Hill blew the dust off an environmental impact statement from 1979 that said mining at Jabiluka was safe. Approval of the mine quickly followed.

The Jabiluka uranium deposit, just 20 kilometres from the Ranger uranium mine, is one of the richest in the world. The proposal was to build a massively bigger mine than that at Ranger, which would be underground and therefore more dangerous for the workers. It was projected to produce 19 million tonnes of ore over its lifetime, which would be trucked 22 kilometres through World Heritage listed wetlands.

The Liberals hoped to make a point. After all, if you could put a uranium mine in the middle of a national park in the face of Aboriginal opposition, what couldn’t you do?

The fight immediately began. The traditional owners of the area, the Mirarr, were led by senior traditional owner Yvonne Margarula and the CEO of the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, Jacqui Katona. They were supported by anti-nuclear campaigners around the country, most notably Dave Sweeney of the Australian Conservation Foundation, as well as a network of activist groups.

The most important objective was to delay construction of the mine, scheduled to begin in 1998. To do this, the Mirarr called on activists to travel to Jabiluka in order to take part in a blockade of the proposed mine site until the onset of the wet season would make construction impossible.

The blockade was immensely successful. Beginning on 23 March 1998, it continued for eight months, attracted 5,000 protesters and led to 600 arrests at various associated direct actions. Yvonne Margarula was one: she was arrested in May for trespass on her own land after she and two other Aboriginal women entered the Ranger mine site.

The blockade also attracted high-profile environmental and anti-nuclear activists such as Peter Garrett and Bob Brown. This helped signal to activists that this was a serious fight. The sheer length of time the blockade lasted created a fantastic opportunity for the campaign in the cities. Activists were constantly returning from Jabiluka with a renewed determination to fight.

The Jabiluka Action Group was key to building an ongoing city-based campaign in Melbourne, and the campaign was strongest there of any city. It held large – often more than 100-strong – weekly meetings, organised endless relays of buses to the blockade and took the fight to the bosses and corporations that stood to profit from the mine.

We were determined to map the networks of corporate ownership and power behind the mine. But in the late 1990s, when the internet barely existed, this wasn’t as simple as just looking up a company’s corporate structure on its glossy website. It took serious, time consuming research.

A careful tracing of the linkages of the North Ltd board members showed that they were very well connected – and not one but two of them were members and past chairmen of the Business Council of Australia (BCA) – one of Australia’s leading bosses’ organisations. So our June 1998 protest naturally headed to the Business Council of Australia. We occupied their office, and the two groups of anti-uranium protesters, 3,800 kilometres apart, exchanged messages of solidarity, courtesy of the office phones of the BCA.

We were also staggered to learn that the chairman of a company that owned two uranium mines and was Australia’s biggest exporter of hardwood woodchips was also a member of the Parks Victoria board, the national president of Greening Australia and the Victorian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) board president!

The EPA, and corporate greenwashing in general, thereby became a target for the campaign. Another target was the Royal Society of Victoria, which made the mistake of inviting Sir Gus Nossal, a famous scientist and longstanding booster for the nuclear industry, to give a dinner address. We surrounded its building, and the organisers, somewhat mystified, cancelled the dinner. This action once again made headline news, helping to keep the issue of the Jabiluka mine in people’s minds.

We held regular protests at the headquarters of North Ltd on Melbourne’s St Kilda Road. On the day that Yvonne Margarula was facing court on her trespass charge, a vigil was held overnight. When we heard she had been found guilty, the protest erupted in fury. Cans of red paint – not water-based – materialised, and the corporate facade of North Ltd received an unscheduled refurbishment. The Herald-Sun went berserk.

The leadership of the Mirarr people gave this campaign a different focus from other environmental campaigns of the time. It was fundamentally about land rights, sovereignty and the right of Aboriginal communities to veto destructive developments on their land. In Melbourne, the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation appointed long-time Aboriginal militant and historian Gary Foley as their representative. Gary worked tirelessly to provoke and educate the many activists who turned up wanting to “support” or “do something” for Aboriginal people.

At a time when “reconciliation” was strongly supported by liberals and much of the left, Foley told us that reconciliation was bullshit. He argued native title (supposedly a key achievement of Keating) was “the most inferior form of land title under British law”, and that the ALP was every bit as racist as One Nation – if not worse. He insisted activists must educate themselves about sovereignty and the struggles happening right here, not just those happening 3,800 kilometres away. The way the Jabiluka Action Group activists approached this challenge was an example of how people’s ideas change. Many came into the campaign primarily as environmental activists, but almost all left as committed fighters for Aboriginal rights.

**********

When the blockade wound down at the onset of the wet season, it was an opportunity to fight on some other fronts. Representatives of the UN World Heritage Committee visited Kakadu in late 1998 and issued a declaration that the World Heritage values of the area were in danger. They called on the government to stop the mine. Yvonne Margarula and Jacqui Katona travelled to Paris to speak to the European Commission about the mine.

John Howard, at the time mired in ministerial scandals and resignations, had called an election for September 1998, and there was hope in some quarters that Labor might win and stop the mine. But Howard scraped back in on only 48.3 percent of the vote, and it was clear that the fight on the ground would have to continue.

In the meantime, an important legal loophole had been identified. North Ltd had failed to secure agreement for the Jabiluka ore to be trucked to the Ranger mine for processing. It turned out the Mirarr did have the right to refuse this, and by exercising this right they would increase the cost of the project by $200 million (the cost of building a new processing plant at Jabiluka). This, combined with the ongoing protests, became a huge problem for the company.

Something we enjoyed doing at the time was monitoring North Ltd’s share price. It started out high when the Liberals took power. But after a year of protest and controversy, it had started to sink. The slump world uranium prices were going through didn’t help. But what the share price correlated to most closely was the major protests – it showed a drop after every single one.

Fund managers everywhere had absorbed the simple message that Jabiluka meant trouble, and early in 1999 this formerly prestigious blue-chip mining stock was described as one of the year’s “dog stocks”. Encouraged by this, the campaign launched its most ambitious action to date – the four-day blockade of North Ltd, from Palm Sunday until Easter Thursday 1999. This was the beginning of the end for the mine. In mid-2000, Rio Tinto bought out the struggling North Ltd. With no appetite for a brawl, the new owners quietly mothballed the Jabiluka project, signing a guarantee with the Mirarr to that effect. The campaign had won.

**********

The Jabiluka campaign was one of those rare things – an outright victory. It was a win not just for the Mirarr people, but for every community threatened by a devastating radioactive mine. And it was a win for humanity as a whole, protected from more of this deadly substance. Our chant – “Hey, North, you’re running out of time! You’re never going to get your Jabiluka mine!” – for once came true.

The victory inspired a neighbouring traditional owner, Jeffrey Lee, single-handedly to challenge the development of the Koongarra uranium deposit, resulting in the cancellation of that entire mining lease. In Melbourne and other cities, the Mirarr resistance inspired sustained and creative campaigning from a wide variety of participants – from vegan Wiccans and revolutionary socialists to doof-doof rave organisers and corporate-philanthropist Women for Mirarr Women. The campaign was chaotic and argumentative, but united by a commitment to challenging corporate power and standing up for Aboriginal sovereignty.

It still serves as an inspiration for anti-nuclear and anti-mining campaigns, such as the brave and determined opposition of the Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owners to the Adani mine. It stands as a great example of how blockades on country can nourish and inspire actions in the cities. https://redflag.org.au/node/6839

Nuclear war between super funds Online Opinion, Jim Green – , 11 July 2019 Industry Super Australia (ISA) – a research and advocacy body for Industry SuperFunds – has published a report promoting nuclear power, prompting a sceptical response from Industry Super Holdings, which is controlled by super funds including AustralianSuper, Cbus, Hostplus and HESTA. Most of those super funds are also involved in ISA, so the sector is at war with itself – or perhaps the sceptical response can be read as the sector’s response to the authors of the pro-nuclear report.

The context for this debate is welcome – super funds urging governments to speed up climate action, and considering using some part of their own vast wealth to make needed investments for climate change abatement.

But the ISA report – ‘Modernising Electricity Sectors: A guide to long-run investment decisions’, written by ISA Chief Economist Stephen Anthony and Emeritus Professor Alex Coram from the University of WA – misses the mark on nuclear power.

ISA gives itself some wriggle-room by noting that the views expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect those of ISA. And the authors give themselves some wriggle-room: for all their nuclear boosterism, they note that it ‘is unlikely that nuclear offers opportunities for investment in the short term’ and that it should be placed on a ‘watching brief’.

On the other hand, the authors argue that Australia’s lack of experience managing a nuclear power plant ‘pre-empts the ability to make decisions between all major options for emission reduction.’ So Australia should introduce nuclear power in order to make a decision as to whether or not to develop nuclear power? Insofar as there is any logic to that argument, it is dizzyingly circular.

The authors fret that Australia has no capacity to build or operate a nuclear facility and thus lags geographical neighbours such as Indonesia and Vietnam. That’s nonsense. All three countries are in the same position: operating research reactors, no capacity to build power reactors and no serious plans to acquire them from overseas vendors (Vietnam abandoned its quest for nuclear power in 2016, citing excessive costs).

The authors state that levelised costs of energy are not a good basis for long-term investment or policy decisions, and they prefer grid-level cost estimates (which make allowance for such things as the cost of back-up power). Fine – but the inputs they choose undermine their work. Rubbish in, rubbish out……..

The report ignores the Hinkley Point construction project in the UK (two EPR reactors) as it ‘seems to be an outlier in terms of technology and financial arrangements’. So the authors use the ridiculous EIRP cost estimates for non-existent Generation IV reactors but ignore cost estimates for reactors that are actually under construction … go figure. Hinkley weighs in at a hefty US$10.5 billion per GW. And the ISA report ignores the Vogtle twin-AP1000 project in the US state of Georgia, which is even worse at US$12.3+ billion per GW.

There’s no mention of the V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors), abandoned after the expenditure of at least A$12.9 billion, There’s no mention of the bankruptcy of industry giants Westinghouse and Areva.

If the ISA report authors are entranced by Generation IV nuclear concepts, as their uncritical use of the EIRP report suggests, why not consider the estimated cost of prototypes under construction rather than ridiculous guestimates offered by nuclear companies? Argentina claims to be a world leader in the development of small modular reactors, but the estimated cost of the one SMR under construction in Argentina has ballooned to an absurd US$21.9 billion / GW. Likewise, estimated construction costs for Russia’s floating nuclear power plant increased more than four-fold and now amount to over US$10 billion / GW.

ISA’s chief economist and report co-author Stephen Anthony told the ABC that nuclear power ‘looks awfully good’. But the only figures in the ISA report that make nuclear look good are the ridiculous guestimates provided by companies involved in Generation IV R&D. Nuclear doesn’t look awfully good to the growing number of countries phasing out nuclear power â€’ a list that now includes Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Taiwan and South Korea. And it doesn’t look awfully good to the nuclear lobbyists pondering what if anything can be salvaged from the ‘ashes of today’s dying industry’ … it looks awful, not awfully good.

A 2015 report by the International Energy Agency and the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency said that ‘generation IV technologies aim to be at least as competitive as generation III technologies … though the additional complexity of these designs, the need to develop a specific supply chain for these reactors and the development of the associated fuel cycles will make this a challenging task.’

The late Michael Mariotte commented on the IEA/OECD report: ‘So, at best the Generation IV reactors are aiming to be as competitive as the current − and economically failing − Generation III reactors. And even realizing that inadequate goal will be ‘challenging.’ The report might as well have recommended to Generation IV developers not to bother.’

Technological neutrality?

A single reactor would be a ‘relatively small investment’, the ISA report states. But cost estimates for all reactors under construction in north America and western Europe range from A$14-24 billion………..

The report discusses the plan for a twin-reactor nuclear plant at Wylfa in Wales, abandoned after the cost estimate increased from A$26.4 billion to A$39.7 billion. The project was abandoned by Hitachi, the ISA authors state, ‘because it was required to carry too much risk relative to the size of the company.’ But staggering British taxpayer subsidies were on offer for Hitachi to proceed with Wylfa. Business and Energy Secretary Greg Clark saidthe UK government offered a ‘significant and generous package of potential support that goes beyond what any government has been willing to consider in the past’ … which is really saying something since taxpayer subsidies for Hinkley Point are estimated at A$55–91 billion.

Evidently the ISA report authors believe that the subsidies on offer for Wylfa needed to be increased again and again until Hitachi finally agreed to go ahead with the project.

Sceptical responses

The New Daily, a publication of Industry Super Holdings, didn’t buy the ISA’s nuclear Kool-Aid. The New Dailyarticle quotes Dr Ziggy Switkowski saying last year that ‘the window for gigawatt-scale nuclear has closed’ and that nuclear power is no longer cheaper than renewables, with costs rapidly shifting in favour of renewables.

The New Daily also quotes Andrew Richards, CEO of the Energy Users Association of Australia. Richards noted that it would take at least a decade to get a nuclear power plant up and running (20+ years according to economist Prof. John Quiggin) and that governments would need to support insurance, dismantling and disposal costs as the private sector won’t take on those risks.

The Electrical Trades Union condemned the ISA report. ETU National Secretary Allen Hicks said: ‘The ETU has very strong concerns about this ISA report that broadly spruiks nuclear power while using flawed assumptions and poor modelling to write down the capacity of renewables and battery technology.’

Hicks called on partners in the superannuation industry to join in the condemnation of the ISA report ‘that is not only full of holes but would put at risk the very people who industry super represents – union members.’

Hicks continued: ‘This report has been developed without consulting key industry stakeholders or actual members of Industry Super Australia that we have been in contact with. … With the Federal Liberal Government totally incapable of leading on energy policy, we think ISA should take a leading role in energy investment, but it must not try to put our members retirement savings into a deadly industry that does not exist in Australia and is fading around the globe and consistently leads to spiralling costs.’

ETU National Industry Coordinator Matthew Murphy accusedI SA of ‘fluffing up the benefits of nuclear power’ and said many of the report’s findings were based on assumptions or numbers with no basis in reality. ‘This report is biased toward nuclear power and against renewables and that clearly bares out in shoddy maths and assumptions like ‘a battery will only run for one hour’ or that the island nation of Australia is not suitable for off-shore wind and tidal power,’ Murphy said. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20399&page=1

The back-and-forth over the issue prompted Mrs Elliot to weigh in and reaffirm her “longstanding opposition to nuclear power”.

“Our community on the North Coast does have a major issue with nuclear energy and I stand with them in opposing any nuclear power plants in coastal communities like ours on the NSW North Coast,” she said.

“Let me make this very clear to Scott Morrison and the Liberals and Nationals – if you pursue any plans for nuclear energy in our region, our community will fight this every day.”

The Labor MP said she had a clear message for LNP Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

“As the local Federal MP my message to the Prime Minister is – no nuclear power – not on my watch,” Mrs Elliot said.

“The Liberal National government needs to come clean on their plans for nuclear power and reassure our community that it won’t become home to a nuclear power plant.

“We know that nuclear power plants need to be built near water so I call on the Liberals and Nationals to rule out any plans for nuclear power in our area.”

Mrs Elliot was adamant the northern NSW community “don’t want it in our area”.

“I stand committed in my opposition to nuclear power and under my watch the North Coast will never become home to a nuclear power plant,” she said.

Mrs Elliot added nuclear power plants could not legally be built in Australia and she said the pressure was on Mr Morrison to “take real action to end the energy crisis that has emerged under the Liberal National Government”.

“So far, all the Liberals and Nationals are promising in energy is expensive new coal-fired power stations and a growing pressure from Ministers such as Karen Andrews, for Australia to pursue even more expensive nuclear power,” she said.

Mrs Elliot’s electorate of Richmond stretches from the Queensland-NSW border to Ballina region in the south

About 1500 people congregated at the steps of Parliament House in Adelaide to let the government know that they still oppose nuclear waste.

Protesters travelled from the Eyre Peninsula and the Flinders Ranges to join other South Australians on Saturday, November 3 at the rally organised by Don’t Dump on SA.

The selection of the national radioactive waste management facility was recently delayed, with the Federal Court set to hear the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation v District Council of Kimba case in January 2019.

Federal government had initially planned to make a decision on the facility by the end of the year.

The protest aimed to deliver a message to federal government to abandon the site selection process and to the South Australian government to uphold the state legislation that makes radioactive waste facilities illegal.

“We want the government to take all sites in SA off the table and to hold a full independent inquiry into the best way to manage our most dangerous waste,” Mara Bonacci from Don’t Dump on SA said.

“The government must stop targeting remote and regional areas and give Aboriginal people a right of veto for proposals that threaten their country and culture.”

Two sites in Kimba and one site at Wallerberdina Station near Hawker have been nominated to host the facility.

Among the many speakers at the Parliament House rally was Adnyamathanha man Dwayne Coulthard, who described the selection process as “cultural genocide”.

“We have had enough of being ignored. No radioactive waste dump on Adnyamathanha country in the Flinders Ranges. No waste dump in Kimba,” Mr Coulthard said.

Other speakers at the rally included state Member for Giles Eddie Hughes and federal Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

The Walkatjurra Walkabout has finished with a storm (literally)! An awesome walk into Leonora with lots of support to keep WA nuclear free. A successful public meeting the following day having CCWA Director Piers Verstegen come into Leonora to support the community and in particular the three Tjiwarl native title holders, Shirley, Lizzy and Vicky on the court challenge that included a visit to the proposed radioactive waste dump. You can see photos and read about their adventures here.

Nobel Peace Ride: Cyclists carry medal to Canberra, urging end to nuclear weapons, A group of cyclists have set off from Melbourne, bound for Canberra to deliver a message to Australia’s new Foreign Minister on banning nuclear weapons. 2 Sept 18 , SBS News, By Biwa Kwan, Twenty cyclists have begun a 900km journey to Canberra from Melbourne.

In their hands will be precious cargo: Australia’s first Nobel Peace Prize. The medal was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) in 2017 in recognition of their work on the adoption of the global treaty to ban nuclear weapons.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee said at the time that the group had been recognised “for its work to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and for its ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons”.

Gem Romuld, ICAN’s Australian director, said the group’s work remains unfinished. An overarching purpose is to urge our government to sign on the nuclear weapons ban treaty,” she said.

“Sixty countries have so far signed on…And many financial institutions are starting to exclude nuclear weapons producers from their investments.

“This is the first treaty to clearly outlaw nuclear weapons, and to set out a clear pathway for their total elimination. And it is absolutely vital that Australia get behind this.”

Leading the Nobel Peace Ride, Ms Romuld said the journey gave a nod to ICAN’s origin story.

“We’re heading out from the steps of Parliament House where ICAN was launched 10 years ago,” she said.

A conversation between campaigners in the Melbourne inner-city suburb of Carlton in 2006 planted the seed for what would later become a global movement. The group officially launched at Victoria’s parliament house in 2007 before expanding to a coalition of 468 grassroots non-governmental groups working towards a UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

The dream was achieved in July 2017 when a legally-binding treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was adopted in a vote by 122 nations, but Australia was not among them.

Ms Romuld said with a new Foreign Minister in the form of Marise Payne, there is renewed hope Australia could join the ranks of nations who have signed the treaty………

K-A Garlick at Nuclear Free WA, 15 Aug 18 The Walkatjurra Walkabout have survived the first 10 days of the protest walk in freezing overnight temperatures and long hot walking days. Walking strong a group of 55 people gathered at Yeelirrie to support Traditional Owners, Aunty Shirley, Lizzie Wonyabong and Vicky Abdhullah in their 40-year struggle to stop the proposed Yeelirrie uranium mine.

The three women have shared stories of the area where they and their families grew up on. and their ancestors grew up. The group was joined by Youno Downs Station, who shared stories of the history of uranium exploration and company intimidation over the years they have lived on the pastoralist station. “Water is what the company is after, they (Cameco) need up to 10 millions of litres of water and they want us to give it to them!” ……. to be continued!

CALLS from the Fairfax branch of the LNP to investigate nuclear power at their state conference in Brisbane this weekend does not sit well with me.

Three energy-related motions submitted to the convention from Federal MP Ted O’Brien’s Fairfax branch call for the Federal Government to adopt policies to support the building of new coal-fired power stations with the ability to deliver reliable and economic power, that the Federal Government reduce current subsidies paid to the renewable energy industry and that the feasibility of nuclear-powered energy generation is investigated.

While none of the ideas voted on at the LNP state conference are set in stone, I for one am concerned about any talk of a nuclear-powered Coast……

Alexander HayesAfter three years of listening, a huge trip across country, countless hours spent editing and many community consultations we are thankful to be releasing today the Protecting Country film which was produced by Bruce Hammond and features Aboriginal leaders in their stand against the continued genocide of uranium mining, testing and dumping in Australia –

“…Protecting Country is an independently produced film bringing the voices of the contemporary Adnyamathanha, Gurindji, Tanganekald, Yankunytjatjara Anunga, Mirning, Narunnga Aboriginal Australian people forward who are united in their stand AGAINST the present and planned uranium mining and nuclear dump activities in South Australia. Bruce Hammond, an Aboriginal Tanganekald man with ties to the coast in the lower South East of South Australia and the central desert regions of Finke and Alice Springs in conjunction with Alexander Hayes & Magali McDuffie from Ngikalikarra Media brought the ‘Protecting Country’ documentary film on a screening road trip across Australia –

NUCLEAR MONITOR – A PUBLICATION OF WORLD INFORMATION SERVICE ON ENERGY (WISE) AND THE NUCLEAR INFORMATION & RESOURCE SERVICE (NIRSAuthor: Ray Acheson ‒ Director, Reaching Critical Will, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom) NM859.4719, May 2018

Looking at a map of South Australia’s nuclear landscape, the land is scarred. Uranium mines and weapon test sites, coupled with indications of where the government is currently proposing to site nuclear waste dumps, leave their marks across the desert. But amidst the devastation these poisonous activities have left on the land and its people, there is fierce resistance and boundless hope.

Friends of the Earth Australia has been running Radioactive Exposure Tours for the past thirty years.Designed to bring people from around Australia to meet local activists at various nuclear sites, the Rad Tour provides a unique opportunity to learn about the land, the people, and the nuclear industry in the most up-front and personal way.

This year’s tour featured visits to uranium mines, bomb test legacy sites, and proposed radioactive waste dumps on Arabunna, Adnyamathanha, and Kokatha land in South Australia, and introduced urban-based activists to those directly confronting the nuclear industry out in country. It brought together about 30 people including campaigners from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and Reaching Critical Will, environmental activists with Friends of the Earth Australia and other organisations, and interested students and others looking to learn about the land, the people, and the industries operating out in the desert.

The journey of ten days takes us to many places and introduces us to many people, but can be loosely grouped into three tragic themes: bombing, mining, and dumping. Each of these aspects of the nuclear chain is stained with racism, militarism, and capitalism. Each represents a piece of a dirty, dangerous, but ultimately dying nuclear industry. And each has been and continues to be met with fierce resistance from local communities, including Traditional Owners of the land.

Testing the bomb The first two days of the trip are spent driving from Melbourne to Adelaide to Port Augusta. We pick up activists along the way, before finally heading out to the desert. Our first big stop on the Tour is a confrontation with the atomic bomb. Continue reading →

ANTI-NUCLEAR campaigners will increase their fight to stop South Australia from becoming the nation’s radioactive waste ground, ahead of a final vote by the community.

Hundreds of postcards will be sent to Federal Resources Minister Matt Canavan demanding cultural heritage sites, agricultural land and the environment be protected from nuclear waste.

The Federal Government is expected to decide in the coming months whether to build a low-level and intermediate-level waste facility at Kimba or Barndioota, in the Flinders Ranges.

The two-year site selection process has divided both communities, those in favour believed it would create economic opportunities, while those opposed said it would jeopardise industries.

Conservation SA nuclear waste campaigner Mara Bonacci said the government needed to be more transparent about the facility ahead of an August 20 community ballot.

“There is division in both communities, whether it’s people who are pro-nuclear waste or anti-nuclear, they both want what’s best for the community,” Ms Bonacci said.

“But the pro-waste people are saying it will create lots of jobs, but we haven’t got any clarity around the numbers or if they’re full-time.

“We also want to know what number the Minister wants in a community vote to show ‘broad community support’ for the facility.”

Before the government decides on the successful site, residents from both communities will be given a final chance to accept or reject the proposal.

The ballot will be held less than a week after findings of a Senate Inquiry into the site-selection process are to be released, on August 14.

Mr Canavan told the Sunday Mail the government would provide more detailed information on the project’s design, job creation, cost, community benefits and safety, ahead of the ballot.

He said a nuclear waste facility would not be imposed on an unwilling community and it would need “broad community support” – although no arbitrary figure was provided.

“As we have always said, a range of factors will be used to determine broad community support, including the results of a public ballot, public and private submissions, and feedback from stakeholders during community discussions, including neighbours, councils and local groups,” Mr Canavan said. “The consultation process is engaging people on all sides of the discussion, and all views – supportive, neutral and opposed – are taken into account.”

The ballot will include residents of the Flinders Ranges Council and within a 50km radius of the Barnidoota site, and the Kimba District Council.

FEDERALSubmissions about the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges. The Standing Committee on Environment and Energy are accepting submissions to the ‘Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ until 16 September 2019. Please write your own submission or use FOE’s online proforma.

Nuclear facilities, including power stations and radioactive waste dumps, are now banned in Queensland.

Nuclear facilities banned under the Act include:

·nuclear reactors (whether used to generate electricity or not);

·uranium conversion and enrichment plants;

·nuclear fuel fabrication plants;

·spent fuel processing plants; and

·facilities used to store or dispose of material associated with the nuclear fuel cycle e.g. radioactive waste material.

Exemptions under the legislation include facilities for the storage or disposal of waste material resulting from research or medical purposes, and the operation of a nuclear-powered vessel.

1 FEDERALSubmissions about the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba or the Flinders Ranges. The Standing Committee on Environment and Energy are accepting submissions to the ‘Inquiry into the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia’ until 16 September 2019. Please write your own submission or use FOE’s online proforma.

Australia has long rejected nuclear power, and it is banned in Federal and State laws. The nuclear lobby is out to first repeal those laws, and then to get the Australian government to commit to buying probably large numbers of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) . This could mean first importing plutonium and/or enriched uranium, as some reactor models, (thorium ones) require these to get the fission process started. That would, in effect, mean importing nuclear wastes.

There’s an all-too short period for people to send in Submissions to the 4 Parliamentary Inquiries now in progress.